By Jacob Hornberger, CampaignForLiberty.com.
...When the Framers were deliberating over the Constitution, they were fully aware of the dangers to people's freedom and well-being posed by a profligate government. As British subjects, they had experienced firsthand the ever-increasing taxes imposed by their king to finance his ever-growing expenditures. As revolutionaries, they had also experienced the ravages that come with the inflation of a currency to finance government expenditures. That's what "Not Worth a Continental" referred to. As citizens living under the Articles of Confederation, they knew the damage that irredeemable paper money can bring to a society.
The first thing to keep in mind about the Constitution was its dual purpose: to bring into existence the federal government while, at the same time, protecting the nation from it. While the Framers understood the need for government, they also understood that that same government constituted the greatest danger to their freedom and well-being...
To read the entire article, click here.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Does the Federal Government have a right to take your property?
An individual asked Paul the following question:
"Does the Government have the right to confiscate your property and all your possessions just because they think they have probable cause and the right to do so ?"
Paul then answered the question, but asked me to clarify using the Constitution. Here is my response.
-----------
I was asked to clarify Constitutionally the answer to your question. I would suggest that we need first to look at the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that all people have a right to their life, liberty and the fruits of their labor. This is part of what they considered the "Natural Law" that governs the universe. One of our founders' great inspirations was the enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, who wrote:
"...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to..."
His basic point was that man injects part of his life and liberty into achieving certain ends, which are his property. To put it another way, you take some of the time of your life and of your own decision serve your fellow man through providing goods or services, and what you get in return is property. That property is the a tangible product of the mixing of your life and liberty, and to rob someone of their property is then to rob them of part of their life and liberty. This natural law precedes all and is above all human governments, thus it is their responsibility to uphold it. Out of all of our founders, Thomas Jefferson most completely upheld these natural property rights by abolishing all federal taxes, taxation being an unlawful (even for governments!) plundering of individuals.
With that in mind, our founders added the 4th and 5th amendments into the Constitution. These were compromises with natural law which allowed for some government theft of private property, but set strict limits through both procedure and extent. The 4th amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This allows for government seizure of private property, but only within stict procedural limits including warrants that describe the specific objects to be seized and reasons for seizure of the objects. Therefore, the federal government could not lawfully take all of a person's property without a warrant listing every single object that the individual owns! Second, the 5th amendment says that an individual may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So if the government does take a person's private property, it is required to give just compensation.
But as always happens with government, you give them a little power and they twist it to be a lot of power. Thus has happened with the 4th and 5th amendments. They were meant as limits to the power of federal seizures but instead have been used as a license for federal seizures.
I know this is a somewhat longer response than you were expecting, but I hope you enjoyed it nevertheless. It's time we put more Thomas Jeffersons in power... if any still exist.
"Does the Government have the right to confiscate your property and all your possessions just because they think they have probable cause and the right to do so ?"
Paul then answered the question, but asked me to clarify using the Constitution. Here is my response.
-----------
I was asked to clarify Constitutionally the answer to your question. I would suggest that we need first to look at the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that all people have a right to their life, liberty and the fruits of their labor. This is part of what they considered the "Natural Law" that governs the universe. One of our founders' great inspirations was the enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, who wrote:
"...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to..."
His basic point was that man injects part of his life and liberty into achieving certain ends, which are his property. To put it another way, you take some of the time of your life and of your own decision serve your fellow man through providing goods or services, and what you get in return is property. That property is the a tangible product of the mixing of your life and liberty, and to rob someone of their property is then to rob them of part of their life and liberty. This natural law precedes all and is above all human governments, thus it is their responsibility to uphold it. Out of all of our founders, Thomas Jefferson most completely upheld these natural property rights by abolishing all federal taxes, taxation being an unlawful (even for governments!) plundering of individuals.
With that in mind, our founders added the 4th and 5th amendments into the Constitution. These were compromises with natural law which allowed for some government theft of private property, but set strict limits through both procedure and extent. The 4th amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This allows for government seizure of private property, but only within stict procedural limits including warrants that describe the specific objects to be seized and reasons for seizure of the objects. Therefore, the federal government could not lawfully take all of a person's property without a warrant listing every single object that the individual owns! Second, the 5th amendment says that an individual may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So if the government does take a person's private property, it is required to give just compensation.
But as always happens with government, you give them a little power and they twist it to be a lot of power. Thus has happened with the 4th and 5th amendments. They were meant as limits to the power of federal seizures but instead have been used as a license for federal seizures.
I know this is a somewhat longer response than you were expecting, but I hope you enjoyed it nevertheless. It's time we put more Thomas Jeffersons in power... if any still exist.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Jake Towne on Freedom Watch!
We were very excited to see one of our own LBCCS members, Jake Towne, on Feedom Watch with Judge Napolitano last Wednesday! You can watch the video below.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Excerpt from For A New Liberty
by Murray Rothbard
But why worry about the weakness of limits on governmental power? Especially in a “democracy,” in the phrase so often used by American liberals in their heyday before the mid-1960s when doubts began to creep into the liberal utopia: “Are we not the government?” In the phrase “we are the government,” the useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the naked exploitative reality of political life. For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group on behalf of another, this reality of burden is conve niently obscured by blithely saying that “we owe it to ourselves” (but who are the “we” and who the “ourselves”?). If the government drafts a man, or even throws him into jail for dissident opinions, then he is only “doing it to himself” and therefore nothing improper has occurred. Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part. But there is no way out of such grotesqueries for those supporters of government who see the State merely as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public.
And so we must conclude that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people, but even if it did, even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the, other 10%, this would still be murder and slavery, and would not be voluntary suicide or enslavement on the part of the oppressed minority. Crime is crime, aggression against rights is aggression, no matter how many citizens agree to the oppression. There is nothing sacrosanct about the majority; the lynch mob, too, is the majority in its own domain.
The entire book is available in PDF and MP3 formats from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
But why worry about the weakness of limits on governmental power? Especially in a “democracy,” in the phrase so often used by American liberals in their heyday before the mid-1960s when doubts began to creep into the liberal utopia: “Are we not the government?” In the phrase “we are the government,” the useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the naked exploitative reality of political life. For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group on behalf of another, this reality of burden is conve niently obscured by blithely saying that “we owe it to ourselves” (but who are the “we” and who the “ourselves”?). If the government drafts a man, or even throws him into jail for dissident opinions, then he is only “doing it to himself” and therefore nothing improper has occurred. Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part. But there is no way out of such grotesqueries for those supporters of government who see the State merely as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public.
And so we must conclude that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people, but even if it did, even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the, other 10%, this would still be murder and slavery, and would not be voluntary suicide or enslavement on the part of the oppressed minority. Crime is crime, aggression against rights is aggression, no matter how many citizens agree to the oppression. There is nothing sacrosanct about the majority; the lynch mob, too, is the majority in its own domain.
The entire book is available in PDF and MP3 formats from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
November Movie/Discussion Group Meeting!
November is here and we are excited to announce the next LBCCS meeting! We will be watching the final two episodes of the series "Liberty! The American Revolution." Last month's episodes ended with the glorious victory of the Americans at Saratoga and our next episode picks up with the British changing strategy and taking the war down south... bad idea.
Come and join us for a time of learning and positive discussion! We will also be providing snacks and coffee.
Please be sure and RSVP by Facebook or email so we can properly prepare for the group.
Date/Time:
Friday, November 13 at 7pm
Place:
The Historic Biery House
8 Race St
Catasauqua, PA 18032
Finding the Biery House:
The house is on the left almost immediately after crossing the Race St bridge (heading East) in Catasauqua. Click here for a map.
Any questions? Contact me, Ryan, at 484-553-0956. We hope to see you there!
Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.
ryan_burgett@hotmail.com
Come and join us for a time of learning and positive discussion! We will also be providing snacks and coffee.
Please be sure and RSVP by Facebook or email so we can properly prepare for the group.
Date/Time:
Friday, November 13 at 7pm
Place:
The Historic Biery House
8 Race St
Catasauqua, PA 18032
Finding the Biery House:
The house is on the left almost immediately after crossing the Race St bridge (heading East) in Catasauqua. Click here for a map.
Any questions? Contact me, Ryan, at 484-553-0956. We hope to see you there!
Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.
ryan_burgett@hotmail.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address
"During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
"You Might Be A Constitutionalist If..."
By Chuck Baldwin, Campaignforliberty.com.
1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.
2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.
3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.
4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.
5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.
6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three "separate but equal" branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.
7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People...
To see the entire list, click here.
1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.
2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.
3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.
4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.
5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.
6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three "separate but equal" branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.
7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People...
To see the entire list, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
